PULITZERS LOST, WHAT A COST - Cheryl Diaz Meyer, 10th in a series on the impact of thousands of job cuts at America's newspapers

Cheryl Diaz Meyer and David Leeson won the Pulitzer Prize for breaking news photography in 2004 for their coverage of the Iraq war for the Dallas Morning News. Today, Diaz Meyer no longer works at the paper. Neither does Leeson. And it's questionable whether the paper would assign photojournalists to do the same type of courageous work overseas again.

That says a lot about why I'm publishing this series, "Pulitzers Lost, What a Cost." It's an attempt to get at what it means for society, journalism and journalists that so many talented people have been spun out, bought out or shut out of newspaper newsrooms in the past few years.

The Pulitzer board cited Diaz Meyer and Leeson for "their eloquent photographs depicting both the violence and poignancy of the war with Iraq." What happens when eloquence is silenced at major news organizations? Diaz Meyer and Leeson are still working. (You can see her work on her personal web site and read more about her latest project in her comments below.) But there's no question in reading her reflections on the state of the newspaper industry that we're paying a price for what's happening in newsrooms across the country.



1. Name, age, final paper.

Cheryl Diaz Meyer, 41, The Dallas Morning News

2. What work did you win Pulitzer for, when?

I won the Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Photography in 2004 with my colleague David Leeson for our coverage of the Iraq invasion.

3. Why did you leave your newspaper? When?

I was part of a company downsizing in April, 2009.

4. What are you doing now?

I am currently editing a story that I photographed on the native and mystic healing arts of the Philippines, specifically how these beliefs marry with Christianity. The story drew me from one side of the country to the other as I interviewed, photographed and audio-recorded subjects for a photo story, written story and multimedia piece.

Any reflections on life after newspapers?

The problem with the catastrophic condition of the newspaper and magazine industry today is that as journalists leave the business in droves, those who are truly passionate about journalism and care to continue working at their craft are now seeking alternative ways to make a living. Some of the most talented journalists in our industry are biding time, trying to make a living doing commercial work, non-profit work, teaching—the journalism skills they have spent years honing are squandered by an economy that cannot support them. This is a loss to our society; and in the larger sense, it’s a loss to our democracy because ultimately the press acts as our country’s watchdog.

In photojournalism particularly, the conversations turn to “monetizing photographs.” Photojournalists increasingly are creating alliances with their subjects who then finance the work. Some say this is not journalism, but public relations. The question does arise, what happens to the journalism if the subject is paying for it?

The paradigm for freelance photojournalism doesn’t exist anymore and yet all who care deeply about the value of journalism want desperately to redefine it, fix it, make it work again.

5. What do you hope to do going forward? Will you stay in journalism? How?

I am passionate about telling stories through photography and I will continue to do so regardless of how the format changes. I will build on the affiliations I already have with media organizations and seek out other kinds of clients who are interested in storytelling images.

I’ve always viewed journalism as an honorable calling, but now we also have to be entrepreneurs. This skill, and one’s ability to adjust to the new technological environment, will probably distinguish who will come out of this crisis still standing.

6. What has the downsizing of your former newsroom or closing of your former paper meant to the quality of journalism in your community? For example, are there types of stories not being told? You could use your own experience to provide examples here.

The photojournalism at The Dallas Morning News has been renowned as some of the best in the world. For many years, the company leaders saw themselves as competitors with the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post and other news behemoths. They were aggressive in their coverage, reporting stories that were of international, national and local importance.

Yet after two Pulitzer Prizes for photography in 2004 and 2006, the publisher stated that he would not support the coverage of stories like the Iraq invasion or Hurricane Katrina, for which those Pulitzers were awarded, if they happened today.

So the paper’s readers on the local level, and the web audience nationally and internationally, will not likely see this type of award-winning storytelling—and some of the best photojournalism is not going to happen at The Dallas Morning News because there is no support for it. The good thing is that the company does continue its focus on hard-hitting local stories, and they have not given up on quality journalism. But I sincerely hope that their turn away from national and international news stories is a response to the economic downturn and not a permanent philosophical change in the company’s vision.

In the meanwhile, my fellow Pulitzer Prize winner, David Leeson, took a buyout almost a year ago, and many other acclaimed photojournalists who joined the staff of the DMN over the past 20 years are no longer with the paper. When I began covering wars in 2001, I tapped Leeson for his knowledge of such dangerous assignments. The loss of institutional knowledge caused by the collective departure of so many seasoned journalists is, in the long term, a crisis for our profession.

7. What, if anything, do you think your newspaper should have done differently to prevent the downsizing or closure that cost you your job?

The Dallas Morning News could not and cannot save itself on its own—the changes that need to happen are industry wide. Giving away content for free, as most media organizations do on the web, is an unsustainable business model. But few have the gumption to charge for it. If all media organizations charged for content, it would become the norm. A year ago, airlines announced that checked bags would incur a fee; most fliers balked, but now it is an accepted cost of flying because almost all airline companies charge.

I’m a fan of micropayments for the web. In the Philippines where an average teacher’s salary is $350 per month, even those earning much less will carry a cell phone, if not two. They easily accrue $10 to $20 in texting fees each month, which is considered palatable because they pay incrementally for the usage. Apple successfully uses a similar business model with iTunes.
Viewers will not balk to pay pennies for a story online, especially if there is no free lunch out there.

The Financial Times has been charging a subscription fee for online content since 2002 and is about to add the option of a micropayment system. As most news organizations struggle to find a solution to falling ad revenue, I think they would benefit from a little solidarity.

8. What would you advise young people wanting to pursue a life in journalism today?

Journalism is a calling, and if you truly feel the call, follow your heart. Because although these are painfully challenging times, you will know no other job more fulfilling and adventuresome.

To read previous installments: Deborah Nelson, Andrew Schneider, Kim Komenich, Janet Reeves, Jerry Kammer, Paul Giblin, Tamara Jones, Glenn Frankel and Joe Demma.

PULITZERS LOST, WHAT A COST - Ninth in a series on the impact of thousands of job cuts at America's newspapers

If you want to know what the decline in the number of journalists in newspaper newsrooms means, it's worth listening to Joe Demma. Demma's been around and see and done a lot. He's been involved in three Pulitzer-winning efforts. Now, as he says in the following interview, he's grateful that he's not "10 or 20 years younger worrying about supporting a young family. It's clear, I think, that he's also dismayed by the impact of newsroom cuts on the quality of journalism in America. "Communities aren’t being covered. People aren’t being informed of what’s happening in their neighborhood and nobody’s watching over how government is working. There is no longer a Fourth Estate."


This series explores the impact of newsroom cuts on society, journalism and journalists. Demma speaks with troubling authority on all three topics.





1. Name, age, final paper.

Joe Demma, 66, South Florida Sun-Sentinel investigations editor.

2. What work did you win Pulitzer for, when?

I was actively involved in three Pulitzer-winning projects as a reporter and editor with Newsday.

a) As a reporter, I was part of a team that wrote The Heroin Trail, a 31-part series that traced the drug from the poppy fields of Turkey to the arms of Long Island addicts. It won the gold medal for public service in 1974.

b) I was the national editor who oversaw the reporting of Patrick Sloyan, who won the Pulitzer for international reporting in 1992 for his coverage of Desert Storm.

c) As the investigations editor, I directed the reporting and edited the Cops on Disability series by Brian Donovan and Stephanie Saul that won the Pulitzer for investigative reporting 1995.

3. Why did you leave your newspaper? When?

I left the Sun-Sentinel in July 2008 when they eliminated my job -- and me along with it.

4 What are you doing now? Any reflections on life after newspapers?

Well, I ride my motorcycle, go to the beach, spend time with my family and am currently working with former Miami Herald investigative reporter Dan Christensen to put together the BrowardBulldog, a non-profit investigative reporting website.

There is life after newspapers, especially if you have Medicare and social security. I started as a copy boy in 1965. We still had hot type and wrote our stories on typewriters with two carbons and sent the stories to the back shop with pneumatic tubes.

It was a great time and Newsday was a great place to learn the craft. I had a terrific run working with some of the best people in the business and on some of the biggest stories of the time. Along the way, we afflicted the comfortable quite a bit and even comforted some of the afflicted.

Now it’s over and I’m grateful that I’m not 10 or 20 years younger worrying about supporting a young family.

5. What do you hope to do going forward? Will you stay in journalism? How?

I’m hoping to be retired, but I don’t think I’ll ever get out of journalism. The immediate plans call for us to put together the BrowardBulldog website and get that running. Once it’s rolling -- funded, staffed up and naming names -- I’d like to step away from the day to day operation and work as a consultant/advisor.

6. What has the downsizing of your former newsroom or closing of your former paper meant to the quality of journalism in your community? For example, are there types of stories not being told? You could use your own experience to provide examples here.

Communities aren’t being covered. People aren’t being informed of what’s happening in their neighborhood and nobody’s watching over how government is working. There is no longer a Fourth Estate. When I got to South Florida almost five years ago there were three newspapers elbowing each other for circulation with the Sun-Sentinel making inroads into Palm Beach County and parrying with the Miami Herald for a no man’s land in northern Miami-Dade and southern Broward County.

Now, the Sun-Sentinel has retreated out of Palm Beach County, is printing the Palm Beach Post and has split up the reporting of Broward and Miami-Dade counties with the Herald.

Without the competition, there’s little of substance going into any of the three newspapers.

It’s even hurt TV news, which used to rely on the newspapers to lift the local news. Now they’re stuck doing video of disasters outside their markets.

Even the layout of the newspaper isn’t being done locally, but by template in Chicago.

It’s this vacuum of news and watchdog journalism that is giving rise to investigative and local news websites across the country. Eventually, they will change the face of journalism.

7. What, if anything, do you think your newspaper should have done differently to prevent the downsizing or closure that cost you your job?

They could have not sold out to the Tribune Company. But that’s ancient history. Once the individual papers started getting gobbled up by the chains and the chains went public, Wall Street wanted profit over journalism and the business got a one-way ticket to Palookaville.

This is not new. How many monastic scribes lost their jobs when Gutenberg started cranking up his press?

How many typesetters lost their jobs when offset presses came along?

This has been coming on for a long time. And while all these CEOs of the big chains were talking about how you can’t cut your way to profitability, they kept cutting. When there was no more fat, they cut into muscle and then bone. And what did it get them?

8. What would you advise young people wanting to pursue a life in journalism today?

Go for it. Whether your reporting is on newsprint or the web, it will be read. Just don’t expect to make a lot of money doing it. This is a calling not a job. And that’s why it is hitting journalists so hard. We all could have made a lot more money doing something else, but we chose to do this mostly because we wanted to make a difference. I still think we can.

To read previous installments: Deborah Nelson, Andrew Schneider, Kim Komenich, Janet Reeves, Jerry Kammer, Paul Giblin, Tamara Jones and Glenn Frankel.

PULITZERS LOST, WHAT A COST - Eighth in a series on the impact of thousands of job cuts at America's newspapers

Glenn Frankel brings a voice of authority and restraint to the discussion of what society, journalism and journalists are losing as a result of the shrinking of newspaper newsrooms. What strikes me about his interview and the previous interview with Tamara Jones, another former Washington Post reporter, is the appreciation and respect they still feel for the institution that supported their journalistic life and their former colleagues.

In this interview, I believe he makes an important point about what I'll call "real journalism." He writes: "I fear that the downsizing is becoming so drastic and the search for younger readers so frantic that many news organizations may lose sight of their true value and importance. I also fear that the journalism is being lost or sacrificed in the emphasis on new technologies, social networks and shiny packaging. If we don’t have anything important to say and no unique journalistic contribution to make, we won’t need new platforms. We won’t need to exist at all---and we won’t."

1. Name: Glenn Frankel
Age: 59
Last news organization: Washington Post

2. What work did you win the Pulitzer for, when?

I won the 1989 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting for “sensitive and balanced” coverage of Israel and the first Palestinian uprising.

3. Why did you leave your paper? When?

After 27 years at the Post as a reporter, editor and foreign correspondent, I took a voluntary buyout in the summer of 2006. It was a ridiculously generous offer to all of us of a certain age and experience level.

4. What are you doing now? Any reflections on life after newspapers?

I’m one of the lucky ones. I landed a gig teaching journalism to undergraduates and journalism master’s students at Stanford University, where I’m entering my fourth year as a visiting professor. I teach a basic reporting and writing course, as well as magazine writing and human rights journalism---all things I deeply care about---to students who are smart, committed and intrigued by journalism, whether they are planning to enter the field or not. I was extremely fortunate to have gotten out of the newspaper business before the wave of bought-out, laid-off or just-plain-fired journalists went tidal. I miss working with my dear comrades at the Post in an enterprise I admired and believed in, but many of them have been following me out the door, voluntarily or otherwise.

5. What do you hope to do going forward? Will you stay in journalism? How?

I’ve written two books and had always planned to write more. I’m working on one right now that combines history, film studies and journalism. I’ve also written a number of freelance magazine pieces, book reviews, etc. Anyone who wants to see my latest work can click on www.glennfrankel.com. I plan to stay involved in journalism until the bitter end---my own demise or that of the profession, whichever comes first.

6. What has the downsizing of your former newsroom or closing of your former paper meant to the quality of journalism in your community? For example, are there types of stories not being told? You could use your own experience to provide examples here.

It makes me very queasy to sit back and criticize my wonderful former colleagues and my devoted former employer. I don’t relish the role of aging ex-sailor, drinking grog in my rocker by a blazing hearth and wagging my ink-stained finger at the hard-working, rain-drenched folks still manning the lifeboats. American daily newspapers were never as good as they should have been, and they’re not so bad now. I don’t live in Washington most of the year and I can’t tell you what stories the Post may be missing. It’s pretty obvious, though, that the shrinking number of journalists covering federal, state and local governments throughout the country means fewer flashlights shone in fewer dark corners. As a former foreign correspondent---14 years as the Post’s bureau chief in London, Jerusalem and Southern Africa---I’m particularly concerned about the loss of alternative voices and perspectives as important newspapers like the Boston Globe, Baltimore Sun, Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer and Newsday shut down their overseas operations and others like the Post and LA Times cut back.

There’s no rule that says a Washington Post newsroom of 400 to 500 people---roughly the same numbers the Post had when I got hired in 1979---can’t put out a great newspaper. But there’s also no rule that says newspapers will become smarter or better managed as they become smaller. Each contraction of the staff damages morale and reduces journalistic ambition. Newsrooms are, among other things, creative enterprises that rely upon committed, restless, energetic people who are willing to take risks and work extra hard. They dry up quickly when the creativity and ambition are drained from their veins.

7. What, if anything, do you think your newspaper should have done differently to prevent the downsizing or closure that cost you your job?

See answer above. I allow myself the occasional cynical smile when I read the faux- brilliant clucking of some of the New Media gurus. The Washington Post did a lot of things right and a few things wrong, but it couldn’t prevent Craigslist or Google, revive the department store business nor patch up an irrevocably shattered business model. I fear that the downsizing is becoming so drastic and the search for younger readers so frantic that many news organizations may lose sight of their true value and importance. I also fear that the journalism is being lost or sacrificed in the emphasis on new technologies, social networks and shiny packaging. If we don’t have anything important to say and no unique journalistic contribution to make, we won’t need new platforms. We won’t need to exist at all---and we won’t.

8. What would you advise young people wanting to pursue a life in journalism today?

There’s never been a better moment to be young, flexible, enterprising and fearless. Journalism---the real stuff, not the phony, useless garbage---was never for the faint of heart, nor did it ever pay very well except for a lucky few. No one’s going to have the predictable, straight-ahead, climb-the-ladder careers that some of us enjoyed. People will have to be adept at moving from job to job, and platform to platform. They’ll have to specialize sooner and create their own personal brand in a chosen area of inquiry like foreign affairs, health, politics or environment. The days when generalists like myself could move from place to place are probably over. But the popular appetite for original reporting that defies conventional wisdom is great and growing, and the demand far outstrips the supply. That’s what I tell aspiring journalists---some of whom have the potential to be the best I’ve ever seen---because it’s what I strongly believe.

To read previous installments: Deborah Nelson, Andrew Schneider, Kim Komenich, Janet Reeves, Jerry Kammer, Paul Giblin and Tamara Jones.

PULITZERS LOST, WHAT A COST - Seventh in a series on the impact of thousands of job cuts at America's newspapers

Today I interview Tamara Jones, a wonderful writer who left The Washington Post right after one of her stories was honored as part of an entry on the Virginia Tech shootings that won the Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Reporting in 2008. In preparing many of these interviews for publication, I find myself wishing that I could have worked with the person whose story I'm sharing. That certainly was the case with Tamara.

It saddens me to see people of this caliber on the outside of the newspaper industry. Our newspapers are losing talent, experience and wisdom that's awfully difficult, if not impossible, to replace. This occasional series, "Pulitzers Lost, What a Cost," is an attempt to explore what it means for society, for journalism and for journalists that America's newspaper newsrooms are shrinking. It's a sign of how serious the times are that even people with this type of track record, people who have produced work recognized to be at the highest level, are now on the outside, without a newspaper to support their journalism.

Typically, I introduce each subject with a photograph. But when I asked Tamara, "Is there a picture available on the Web that you prefer?" here's how she responded.

"Yes, I would like Angelina Jolie's picture, please," she wrote.

"I don't think there is a picture of me, and if there is, I hate it and, being Irish and all, I would just get vindictive and probably make you an unspeakably horrid character in my novel. Can we use the Far Side cartoon, instead??"

I wish. But I don't have Gary Larsen's permission to use his cartoons, so I thought it best just to leave the photo space blank. Tamara's words speak volumes. No picture is necessary.

1. Name, age, final paper.

Tamara Jones, 51, The Washington Post

2. What work did you win Pulitzer for, when?

A feature I wrote on deadline, "Tragedy Beyond the Imagination," was one of 10 stories in the Post's winning package for coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre. We won the breaking news category in 2008.

3. Why did you leave your newspaper? When?

I left a couple of weeks after the Pulitzers, in May 2008. I took a buyout. As a narrative feature writer, I felt increasingly like the deer in that classic 'Far Side' cartoon -- the one with the red bulls-eye over its heart. ("Helluva birthmark, Hal," the other deer observes). I had dreamed of writing for the Style section since I was a baby reporter working overnight rewrite at the AP, and it took me nearly 15 years to get there. I loved Style too much to bear its death throes. And I didn't really fit in anywhere else at the paper.

4. What are you doing now? Any reflections on life after newspapers?

Most G.A. writers have the attention span of gerbils on Red Bull, and I'm no exception. We crave variety. I'm freelancing for a few national magazines and am under contract to write a crime novel. I've done some media-consulting for The Kaplan Thaler Group, the advertising powerhouse behind the Aflac duck, and they've opened my eyes about how to apply my journalistic skills to that wildly creative world. I also enjoy ghostwriting, but I'm too picky about my projects to depend on that full-time. I never imagined doing all that I'm doing. Before leaving the Post, I figured I'd just go to a smaller paper -- ideally, someplace where I could coach, edit and write. I fantasized about a nice little journalism boutique. But those hopes were quickly dashed when the industry took such a nosedive, along with the economy. Of course I miss the romanticism of working for a newspaper, but I have to admit at the same time that I feel liberated creatively. Writing, for me, has always been more of an emotional than intellectual exercise. My rush is that sense of connecting. There's so much I want to try. I've spent my entire adult life observing the world around me, chronicling it, and keeping it at the required arm's length. Now I want to engage it. This is such an exciting time to be involved in the field of communication no matter what the medium. I relish the collision of urgency and intimacy. (OK, that sounded way dirtier than I meant).

5. What do you hope to do going forward? Will you stay in journalism? How?

I hope to shift to fiction, but I'd like to keep one foot in journalism through magazine work. I want to explore other things, too. I'd love to make a living writing for humanitarian organizations. I also enjoy teaching and mentoring, but I don't have a Masters, and colleges seem more interested in the degree than experience in the field. Crisis-management communication also intrigues me, having covered more than my fair share of disasters, high-profile trials and crises.

6. What has the downsizing of your former newsroom or closing of your former paper meant to the quality of journalism in your community? For example, are there types of stories not being told? You could use your own experience to provide examples here.


The Post newsroom has been decimated, and the people left behind keep being told to do more, more, more with less, less, less. They're exhausted, they're anxious, they're beyond demoralized. And guess what? They're still committed 110% to serving a misguided public that considers them disposable. Has quality been impacted? Of course it has, especially in feature-writing. Voice is being replaced with attitude, and there are more and more 'lite' quickies. The lack of warm bodies and resources in the newsroom also results in less first-hand observation. Travel budgets have been slashed, which translates to a lot more reporting done by phone and surfing the web. You can get quotes and factoids that way, yes, but you won't get poetry. What's sacrificed is depth, nuance, layers. Steve Coll, when he was managing editor, used to call it "sitting still inside the story." I also notice a lot of promising reporters flatlining instead of flourishing, because editors and senior writers who served as coaches have either left or no longer have the luxury of time to mentor. When I wrote my first Style piece, Gene Weingarten was my editor, and we spent two entire days locked in his office, fine-tuning every single sentence of a 100-inch piece. It was about a miracle in Baltimore that had been used to canonize a saint. Gene told me I had "to prove whether or not God exists." Those heady days are gone for good. If I pitched the same idea today, I'd probably be told to just do a phoner with God and cobble together a 10-inch Q&A for tomorrow.

7. What, if anything, do you think your newspaper should have done differently to prevent the downsizing or closure that cost you your job?

The Washington Post has been spared the corporate greed and buffoonery that has systematically sucked the lifeblood out of so many great newspapers -- the LA Times, the Miami Herald, the Philly Inquirer. If something could have been done to prevent jobs lost at the Post, I know with utter conviction that Don Graham would have done it. He cherishes that paper. The Washington Post will be the last family-owned paper standing. That said, I think we all wish we hadn't been so complacent. There's always been this disparity between the way we perceive ourselves and how society views us. As journalists, we genuinely believe that we are doing noble work, but opinion polls consistently rank us among the least-trustworthy, right down there with ambulance-chasers, grave robbers and mercenaries. Maybe we should have been less indignant and more curious about why we weren't valued.

8. What would you advise young people wanting to pursue a life in journalism today?

Be flexible about the medium, and become as savvy as you can about all the different platforms. Journalism isn't about ink and newsprint; it's about bearing witness. Storytelling existed before language did, and I'm sure the people who drew on cave walls never imagined computer screens. There will always be a hunger for a story well-told.

Editor's note: If you know of other people I should approach for this series, please let me know.
To read previous installments: Deborah Nelson, Andrew Schneider, Kim Komenich, Janet Reeves, Jerry Kammer and Paul Giblin.

PULITZERS LOST, WHAT A COST - Sixth in a series on the impact of thousands of job cuts at America's newspapers

How best to get at the cost for society, for journalism and for journalists of the loss of thousands of jobs at American newspapers? This is the sixth in a series that tries to do it by asking journalists who have shown themselves capable of producing work of the highest caliber - winners of the Pulitzer Prize who are no longer at a newspaper - for their reflections on what happened to them, what it's meant and how they view the future. It's a sign of how serious the times are that even people with this type of track record are now on the outside, without a newspaper to support their journalism.

The series continues today with an e-mail interview with Paul Giblin, whose story truly is incredible. Here’s a journalist who was laid off - and then won the Pulitzer for work he’d done before he was cut from the staff of his newspaper. Paul and Ryan Gabrielson of the East Valley Tribune, Mesa, AZ, won the 2009 award for local reporting for "their adroit use of limited resources to reveal, in print and online, how a popular sheriff’s focus on immigration enforcement endangered investigation of violent crime and other aspects of public safety."

To read previous installments: Deborah Nelson, Andrew Schneider, Kim Komenich, Janet Reeves and Jerry Kammer. More to come...




1. Name, age, final paper.

Paul Giblin, 46. I was laid off from the East Valley Tribune in Mesa, Ariz., in January 2009. At the time, I was the paper’s federal affairs reporter, which was a terrific position. Since then I co-founded the on-line political news site The Arizona Guardian with three other former East Valley Tribune journalists and a fifth partner.

2. What work did you winner Pulitzer for, when?

I worked with a talented and driven reporter named Ryan Gabrielson on a series of stories about Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his high-profile illegal immigration efforts. The series dealt with the program’s threat to civil liberties and it’s consequences to taxpayers in the forms of high costs and reduced law-enforcement services. We worked on the project for six months and published in July 2008. We were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Local Reporting in May 2009.

3. Why did you leave your newspaper? When?

The East Valley Tribune laid off half its newsroom staff in January 2009. I was part of that group. There was a ton of talent in that group, people with skill and insight and experience and humor and institutional knowledge.

4. What are you doing now? Any reflections on life after newspapers?

I am one of five co-founders of The Arizona Guardian, www.arizonaguardian.com, an on-line newspaper that covers Arizona government and politics.

5. What do you hope to do going forward? Will you stay in journalism? How?

For now, I’m working with my partners to build the Guardian. I certainly would like to stay in journalism. I enjoy the craft. I love the idea that my work serves a greater purpose.


6. What has the downsizing of your former newsroom or closing of your former paper meant to the quality of journalism in your community? For example, are there types of stories not being told? You could use your own experience to provide examples here.


Since January, the Tribune has gone from publishing seven days a week to three days a week. The number of sections has been reduced two. During the past year or so, the paper has shrunk from broadsheet to tab. And, as I mentioned before, the news staff has been chopped in half. In fact, nearly everyone who touched the Pulitzer project at the Tribune is no longer with the paper – graphic artists, photographers, Web designers, editors, others. Those are factual matters. I’ll let others make value judgments about what those changes have meant to the overall quality of journalism in the region.


7. What, if anything, do you think your newspaper should have done differently to prevent the downsizing or closure that cost you your job?


That’s the million-dollar question, isn’t it? I believe newspapers in general failed and continue to fail to market their best assets. Why don’t newspapers buy billboards to promote their top news columnists, sports writers and movie reviewers? Why don’t more newspapers do Q&A’s with those types of staffers and readers? Why are newspapers’ marketing efforts limited to giving away pens at country music festivals? However, I’m not sure any of that would have mattered in the era of Craigslist.


8. What would you advise young people wanting to pursue a life in journalism today?

At the speed at which the industry is changing, I’m not sure about the value of advice from me or anyone else for the next wave of aspiring journalists. With that said, I would suggest trashing the idea of distinctions between print journalism, radio journalism, television journalism and Internet journalism. It’s just journalism now. Still, old school, hard-hitting journalism has real value. The trick is figuring out how it fits in an industry that’s changing so quickly. So be prepared for anything, including layoffs.


Finally, is there anything else you'd like to say about your experience or journalism's future that we haven't covered in these questions?


Concerning one particular aspect of journalism’s future, my resume is available at www.paulgiblin.net. Thanks for asking.

-- Paul Giblin

Editor’s Note: If you know of others who should be interviewed for this project, please let me know. Thank you. John Temple.

PULITZERS LOST, WHAT A COST - Fifth in a series on the impact of thousands of job cuts at America's newspapers

What does it tell us that a passionate voice like Jerry Kammer’s is no longer supported by a newspaper? In 2006, two Pulitzers were awarded for National Reporting. The New York Times won one, and the other was won by The San Diego Union-Tribune and Copley News Service, “with notable work by Marcus Stern and Jerry Kammer, for their disclosure of bribe-taking that sent former Rep. Randy Cunningham to prison in disgrace.”

This series, “Pulitzers lost, what a cost,” explores the impact of thousands of journalists losing their jobs by asking some of those who have shown themselves capable of producing work of the highest caliber - winners of the Pulitzer Prize who are no longer at a newspaper - for their reflections on what happened to them and how they view the future of journalism. Mr. Kammer’s is the fifth interview.

Previous interviews: Deborah Nelson, Andrew Schneider, Kim Komenich and Janet Reeves.



1. Name: Jerry Kammer
Age: 59
Last news organization: Copley News Service

2. What work did you winner Pulitzer for, when?

Our story was a Washington political scandal whose central figure was Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham. We told how he was bribed by defense contractors for whom he stuffed earmarks into appropriations bills. We also told the story of a broader network of politicians who provided earmarks while collecting big campaign cash not only from the contractors but also from the lobbyists hired to represent the contractors. It was a story of a perversion of democracy by a system twisted by the relentless need for campaign cash. The decadent excess of several of these guys added spice to the mix.

Here are the stories that were recognized with the 2006 Pulitzer for National Reporting:

Story 1.

Story 2.

Story 3.


3. Why did you leave your paper? When?

This is a little complicated. I took a buyout from the Copley News Service at the end of 2007, about a year before they closed the Washington bureau, where I worked. A few months later, I got a call from an editor at the Arizona Republic (where I had worked for 16 years) asking if I’d be interested in a part-time job helping to cover the election. So I worked from April through the election in November. Officially, I was employed by Gannett News Service, but nearly everything I did was for the Republic.

4. What are you doing now? Any reflections on life after newspapers?

I’m now doing research and writing for the Center for Immigration Studies, a DC think tank that advocates reduced immigration. I miss working with other reporters. I miss the buzz of digging. But I feel fortunate to be working on an issue in which I have been interested ever since I was a correspondent in Mexico for the Republic from 1986-1988. Here's where you can find my blog.

5. What do you hope to do going forward? Will you stay in journalism? How?

I’m hoping to do useful work at CIS. Our country needs an open, honest debate on immigration policy, which I have observed since I was the Arizona Republic's correspondent in Northern Mexico from 1986 to 1988. I’d like to provide good information to help inform the debate. I have two fundamental concerns about immigration trends of the past 30 years. First, we are on track to double our population in the next century, a frightening prospect but one welcomed by the employers of low-wage labor, who have formed an ad hoc coalition with some liberal groups to push for "comprehensive" reforms that will further accelerate the growth of our population. Second, the steady rise of illegal immigration of poorly educated people from desperate regions of the Third World is importing a new underclass. Many of these migrants are willing to work hard for poor pay at the bottom rungs of an economy that is losing many of its middle rungs. They are employed by businesses that grow wealthy, while pushing onto the rest of society heavy costs for health care, schools and social services. The process is widening the gap between rich and poor and threatens to bring us the social structure of Latin America. I'd like to provide information that will help inform the immigration debate. My motto for writing about immigration remains what it was when I was a reporter: Always hard-headed but never hard-hearted. Every immigrant has a story. But as Barbara Jordan said when she chaired a federal commission on immigration reform, we need an immigration policy that serves the national interest. Out thinking about immigration should be guided less by nostalgia for our grandparents and more by concern for our grandchildren.


6. What has the downsizing of your former newsroom or closing of your former paper meant to the quality of journalism in your community? For example, are there types of stories not being told? You could use your own experience to provide examples here.


The closing of Copley’s DC bureau (which at the end was the bureau of Copley’s flagship paper, the San Diego Union-Tribune) means that San Diego has no eyes to concentrate on its congressional delegation in DC. It means the paper would have missed the Cunningham scandal had it developed a few years later. But there are some fine reporters and editors who remain in San Diego after the brutal downsizing. I’m pulling for them. I’m also pulling for my old colleagues at the Arizona Republic. We had a great I-team there, back in what we Old Timers will always think of as a golden era, when we had a sense of mission and the money to carry it out. But that era started to fade well before the recession, craigslist and the Internet-writ-large began tossing neutron bombs into the newsroom. When Gannett bought the paper, they turned Arizona into a colony. As history shows, the purpose of a colony is not to provide for the well-being of the natives; it is to generate profits for the home country, which in this case was Gannett corporate headquarters. In the relentless pursuit of a greater return on investment, they siphoned off resources that had previously been spent on reporting, on making the paper the ARIZONA Republic and not just the Metro Phoenix News You Can Use If It Doesn’t Piss Off the Real Estate Industrial Complex. (Thanks for that name to Jon Talton, the tremendously talented columnist let go by Gannett because he kept on pissing off the REIC). The staff suffered layoff after layoff, and the quality of the paper declined in tandem. But I’m still pulling for the staff that remains, including some first-rate reporters and editors. They’re terribly overworked, but they’re making a great effort.


7. What, if anything, do you think your newspaper should have done differently to prevent the downsizing or closure that cost you your job?

I’ll take the question as an invitation to a utopian vision of newspapers. The best thing that could have happened would have been for newspaper ownership to have remained in the hands of local families who had a sense of noblesse oblige, who were more concerned about being members of their communities than about maximizing profit. Capitalism is a wonderful system, when the drive for profit is restrained by a sense of social obligation and rigorous regulation. Corporate ownership of newspapers has ripped the soul out of many newspapers. Look at what happened to the papers in Phoenix, Louisville, DesMoines et al after they were bought by Gannett. The Gannettoids aren’t uniquely guilty. They’re just part of the steady ascendancy of buccaneer capitalism in our country. Look at Wall Street, where the bastards went wild with the smiling benediction of Alan Greenspan, whose every non-move was directed by the Gospel of Ayn Rand. Look at our gargantuan food industry, especially the meat processing giants who have relentlessly driven down workers’ real wages while increasingly depending upon an easily exploitable workforce of illegal immigrants. Look at our Congress, where the drive for campaign cash puts our democracy up for sale to the big-money-boys who know how the game is played: Hire the right lobbyists and make the right campaign contributions and Washington is yours. We’ve got government of the lobbyist, by legislative machinations like earmarks and regulatory nips and tucks, for the campaign cash. Mr Lincoln would not approve. But he’s the man who said that “we here highly resolve…” Does anybody highly resolve anything these days—except to get re-elected or pick up that mega-huge year-end bonus?

I see I’ve turned this into a rant. I’ll wrap it up with this: I used to think my politics were moderate or slightly left-of-center. But the perversions of capitalism that I’ve seen during my career as a reporter (including several years covering Charlie Keating and the plundering of the S&Ls) have persuaded me that Karl Marx was right when he said capitalism would be destroyed by its own excesses. The excesses that continually torment our society are devastating in their cumulative, debilitating, demoralizing effect. We need to see our actions today through the lens of Americans 50 or 100 years from now, who will be dealing with the consequences of what we do today. One of journalism’s jobs is to craft that lens, to stimulate that crucial American capacity for self-criticism and self-correction. God bless the reporters and editors who take on that job. God bless the media owners who provide them the means to do it.



8. What would you advise young people wanting to pursue a life in journalism today?

I would definitely encourage a young person who likes to write and who believes that good journalism is a vital public service to enter the field. But I'm a little concerned about this intern culture that has evolved, in which young people who have both connections and talent want to start at a big paper and stay there. There are tremendous opportunities to do good work and to learn every aspect of our craft at small newspapers. I am so glad that my first newspaper job was at the Navajo Times, in Window Rock, AZ. I'd encourage young people to develop an interest in a particular issue and then develop an expertise in it. For example, it could be a great adventure to start at a small paper in Iowa and become an expert in telling stories of the evolution of agriculture because of such issues as global trade, federal subsidies, the use of ethanol. It would also be fascinating to go to the Mexican border, learn Spanish, and write about the turbulent interface between the two countries and cultures, developing an understanding of immigration along the way. Of course, such a job might not be possible for a young person who finishes college with a lot of debt strapped to his or her back. But those who don't carry that load should see the world, have adventures, take a few knocks, become a more complete reporter, citizen, human being. That will help them avoid the narrowness and self-importance of too many young products of the intern culture. Having taken that knock, I'd need to add that I've seen some first-rate people take the multiple-internship route. But my bias is for those who have a broader imagination and sense of adventure.